Seoul
Chief MD, Gangnam
Duk-ha Kim
The trust our patients have placed in this clinic was built on conviction and principle. We intend to hold to both, unchanged, through the next hundred years.
Medical skin-care menu category guide
Sebum and Pore Care
Sebum and pore care is a medical skin-care heading covering hydradermabrasion-type care items, and it is sold separately from the pore-laser menu. In the US classification a powered dermabrasion brush sits in Class I and is exempt from premarket notification, which means effectiveness was never reviewed — not that it was approved, and not that it is unsafe.
- What the heading covers
- Care-type items worked at the skin surface, listed apart from the pore-laser menu
- US classification of the device type
- Product code GFE, 21 CFR 878.4820 — Class I, exempt from 510(k) premarket notification
- What exempt means
- Effectiveness and indications are not reviewed — neither an approval nor a warning
- Evidence available here
- Three published studies, none randomised and none with a control group except one small two-arm design; largest is 29 participants
What is actually being sold under a sebum and pore care heading?
A set of surface care steps, listed as a separate booking category from the pore-laser menu. Items filed here are handpiece-and-solution routines performed on the skin surface rather than treatments that place energy or needles below it, which is why the two headings exist side by side rather than as tiers of one thing. The clinical literature uses the name hydradermabrasion for the member of this family that has actually been studied, and those studies describe it as a course of in-clinic sessions performed together with an applied serum. Nothing about the heading itself tells you the device class, the intended use or the evidence behind any single item on it — those have to be asked for one item at a time.
Sources: Freedman BM, J Cosmet Dermatol 2008 — hydradermabrasionFDA product classification GFE — powered dermabrasion brush
Where does hydradermabrasion sit in the device classification?
In the US product classification database, the device type is recorded as a powered dermabrasion brush under product code GFE, regulation number 21 CFR 878.4820, reviewed by the general and plastic surgery panel, placed in Class I and marked exempt from 510(k). Two limits apply to reading that record. First, it classifies a device type, not a brand, and a marketing name does not map onto a classification code by itself. Second, classification is national — a US record says nothing about how the same equipment is registered in Korea or anywhere else.
Sources: FDA product classification GFE — powered dermabrasion brush21 CFR 878.4820 — dermabrasion device (GPO)
What does ‘exempt from premarket notification’ actually mean?
It means the agency did not examine the device for effectiveness before it could be sold. The regulation text is short and worth reading literally: the device is placed in Class I subject to general controls, and it is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807. Neither half of that sentence is a verdict on outcomes. It is not an approval, and a clinic describing an exempt item as FDA-approved is describing something that does not exist; it is equally not a finding of danger, because exemption reflects the category the device type sits in rather than a review that produced a negative result. General controls still apply to an exempt device. The practical consequence is that any effectiveness claim has to come from published studies rather than from the classification record.
Sources: 21 CFR 878.4820 — dermabrasion device (GPO)FDA product classification GFE — powered dermabrasion brush
How far does the published evidence on hydradermabrasion actually go?
Three studies, all small. A 2008 study enrolled 20 women aged 34 to 56 and split them into two arms: one received six hydradermabrasion sessions, the other had the same serum applied by hand with no device. Biopsies and antioxidant measurements were taken, and the device arm showed increased epidermal and papillary dermal thickness. A 2022 multicentre study of 20 participants ran 12 weeks in acne, open-label with no control arm, and recorded the proportion rated clear by investigators moving from 20% at the start to 65%. A 2024 prospective study of 29 participants also ran 12 weeks without a control group. That is the whole body of evidence this page can cite, and every figure in it belongs to the design that produced it.
Sources: Freedman BM, J Cosmet Dermatol 2008 — hydradermabrasionJ Clin Aesthet Dermatol 2022 — hydradermabrasion for acneJ Cosmet Dermatol 2024 — hydradermabrasion with growth-factor serum
Why does the design change how those numbers should be read?
Because without a control arm there is nothing to subtract from the result. The move from 20% to 65% in the 2022 acne study was rated by investigators in an open-label design with no comparison group, so it cannot be separated from the natural course of acne, seasonal variation, whatever else the participants were using, or the expectations of the person doing the rating. The 2008 study did include a comparison arm, which is the strongest design here, yet nothing in it is described as randomised or blinded and 20 participants split in two is a small sample. The 2024 study is prospective but uncontrolled, and its self-reported satisfaction figure has no comparison behind it. None of this says the sessions do nothing — it says these designs cannot establish how much of what was observed came from the treatment.
Sources: J Clin Aesthet Dermatol 2022 — hydradermabrasion for acneFreedman BM, J Cosmet Dermatol 2008 — hydradermabrasionJ Cosmet Dermatol 2024 — hydradermabrasion with growth-factor serum
How do you tell the device apart from the product applied with it?
Ask which of the two the study was built to test. The 2024 study of 29 participants over 12 weeks examined hydradermabrasion performed with a growth-factor serum, and the serum is the variable under examination there rather than the handpiece — so that paper should not be quoted as evidence for the device on its own. The 2008 design shows the contrast: both arms received the same serum and only one arm received the device, which is the arrangement that isolates the device at all, small and non-randomised though it was. The same confusion arrives on a clinic menu as a single name covering a machine plus whatever is pushed through it, and a price attached to the combined name does not say which part is doing the work.
Sources: J Cosmet Dermatol 2024 — hydradermabrasion with growth-factor serumFreedman BM, J Cosmet Dermatol 2008 — hydradermabrasion
How does Korean law divide medical practice from beauty-shop services?
Through two separate statutes that answer two different questions. Article 27, paragraph 1 of the Medical Service Act provides that a person who is not a medical person may not perform medical practice, and that even a medical person may not perform medical practice beyond the scope of their licence. Separately, Table 4 of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Health Control Act lists acts that a beauty-business operator may not perform: mole removal, ear piercing, double-eyelid surgery, tattooing, dermabrasion and other similar medical acts. What neither provision settles on its face is which individual care steps a non-licensed staff member may carry out inside a medical institution under a doctor’s direction. That boundary is worked out through case law and administrative interpretation. Nothing here should be read as a statement that a given care item may only be performed in a hospital, or that it may not.
Sources: Korea Medical Service Act Article 27 — unlicensed medical practiceKorea Public Health Control Act Enforcement Rule, Table 4
What can be expected from a course, and how long does it hold?
The honest answer is that the cited studies do not reach that far. The 2008 protocol ran six sessions and the 2022 and 2024 studies ran 12 weeks; none of them followed participants beyond their own endpoint, so no verified source here establishes how long any observed change persists. On pore size specifically, this page takes no position in either direction: nothing cited establishes that a pore is permanently made smaller, and nothing cited establishes that it cannot change — the question simply is not answered by these designs. What can be said is that sebum production continues regardless, and that a repeating schedule proposed by a clinic is a plan it has designed rather than a published dosing regimen carried over from any of these papers.
Sources: Freedman BM, J Cosmet Dermatol 2008 — hydradermabrasionJ Clin Aesthet Dermatol 2022 — hydradermabrasion for acneJ Cosmet Dermatol 2024 — hydradermabrasion with growth-factor serum
How long does the effect last?
None of the three studies cited on this page followed participants past the study’s own endpoint — six sessions in 2008, twelve weeks in the 2022 and 2024 studies — so no source here says how long an observed change lasts once the sessions stop. Sebum production does not pause because a course ended; it continues regardless, which is one reason a repeating schedule is something a clinic designs rather than a duration any of these papers measured. What is likely to matter more than a stated number of weeks is which item is actually booked: a device-only routine, a device-plus-serum routine, or a serum applied without the device, since the cited studies attribute their results to different combinations of those two variables. Ask the clinic how many sessions it is proposing, over what interval, which of the device or the serum it credits for the intended effect, and what it would do if no change is visible after that course.
Sources: Freedman BM, J Cosmet Dermatol 2008 — hydradermabrasionJ Clin Aesthet Dermatol 2022 — hydradermabrasion for acneJ Cosmet Dermatol 2024 — hydradermabrasion with growth-factor serum
What should you confirm before booking a care session?
Confirm the machine, the solution and the operator, and get them written down. Ask which device is used and what its registered class is in Korea, what solution or serum is applied and in what quantity, how many steps the session contains, whether a course is being proposed and over how many weeks, who physically performs it and under whose direction, and what the clinic does if the skin reacts. Disclose isotretinoin use, active or inflamed acne, rosacea, eczema or broken skin in the treatment area, a history of cold sores, recent peels, lasers or injectables, and pregnancy or breastfeeding. The following is general post-procedure safety guidance rather than a finding of the studies cited here: contact the clinic promptly for blistering, a suspected burn, pain that increases instead of settling, spreading redness or warmth, drainage, or a crust that will not heal, and seek emergency care for difficulty breathing or sudden swelling of the lips, mouth, tongue or throat.
Sources: Korea Medical Service Act Article 27 — unlicensed medical practice21 CFR 878.4820 — dermabrasion device (GPO)
Care item, serum alone, or a procedure named in the beauty-shop rule?
Four things that get spoken about as if they were points on one scale. The table sets out what each one is in the records cited on this page — nothing here ranks them, and no source on this page compares them head-to-head for pore appearance.
| Option | How the cited records classify or name it | What the cited studies actually tested | What the Korean provisions address | Confirm before booking |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hydradermabrasion-type care item | The device type is recorded as a powered dermabrasion brush, product code GFE, 21 CFR 878.4820, Class I and exempt from 510(k) | Six sessions in a 20-person two-arm study (epidermal and papillary dermal thickness), 12 weeks in a 20-person open-label acne study with no control arm, and 12 weeks in a 29-person uncontrolled study | Neither provision names this item | The exact device and its registered class in Korea, the solution applied, the number of steps, and who performs it |
| The same serum applied by hand, no device | Not a device and not classified as one — it exists in the cited literature only as the comparison arm of the 2008 study | It was the control-style arm: the same serum, no hydradermabrasion. The device arm, not this one, showed the thickness increase | Not addressed by either provision as quoted here | Whether what you are being quoted for is the machine, the product, or both — and which one the price is attached to |
| Device plus growth-factor serum as one menu name | No separate classification exists for a combined name; the classification record covers a device type only | The 2024 prospective study of 29 participants over 12 weeks, where the growth-factor serum rather than the handpiece is the variable under examination, with no control group and self-reported satisfaction | Not addressed by either provision as quoted here | Which component the clinic expects to produce the result, and what evidence it is relying on for that component specifically |
| Dermabrasion as named in the beauty-shop rule | Table 4 of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Health Control Act names dermabrasion among acts a beauty-business operator may not perform. The US classification separately uses the word dermabrasion in the name of the device type | No study cited on this page tested dermabrasion as a procedure | Medical Service Act Article 27(1) on who may perform medical practice, and Table 4 on what a beauty-business operator may not perform | What the clinic means by the term, since a device-type name and a statutory term are not automatically the same act |
None of the rows above is an approved pore treatment, and nothing here ranks them. Class I exempt means the device type was not reviewed for effectiveness — it is neither an endorsement nor a warning. The Korean provisions quoted set out who may perform which acts.
Sources: FDA product classification GFE — powered dermabrasion brush21 CFR 878.4820 — dermabrasion device (GPO)Freedman BM, J Cosmet Dermatol 2008 — hydradermabrasionJ Clin Aesthet Dermatol 2022 — hydradermabrasion for acneJ Cosmet Dermatol 2024 — hydradermabrasion with growth-factor serumKorea Public Health Control Act Enforcement Rule, Table 4Korea Medical Service Act Article 27 — unlicensed medical practice
Medical care at Abijou
Care is provided by the medical team at the branch you select. These clinicians lead the three branches linked from this guide; confirm the doctor assigned to your visit with that branch.
Chief MD, Myeongdong
Cheol-su Yoon
I want to be thinking about how the patient feels right up to the last moment of the procedure.
Chief MD, Hongdae
Jae-wook Kim
I will give my best with the attentiveness to catch even the smallest change.
Listed branch medical team — not a medical-review byline for this article.
Frequently asked questions
What is hydradermabrasion, as the term is used in the studies?
It is the name the published literature gives to a course of in-clinic surface sessions performed with a powered handpiece together with an applied serum. The 2008 study describes exactly that arrangement — six sessions in one arm, the same serum applied by hand in the other — and the later acne and growth-factor studies use the word for the same kind of procedure. The word is descriptive rather than regulatory: it tells you roughly what happens in the room, and nothing about what any regulator has assessed.
What is a ‘product code’ in a device classification record?
It is the identifier a regulator assigns to a type of device, not to a brand. Product code GFE covers powered dermabrasion brushes under 21 CFR 878.4820; any number of different machines from different manufacturers can share one code, and a machine can carry a marketing name that appears nowhere in the record. That is why a clinic quoting a code is telling you which shelf the category sits on rather than which machine is in the room, and why this page states plainly that it could not verify whether a particular hydradermabrasion product is registered under GFE.
Does it actually clean sebum out of the pore, or does it work on the surface?
No source cited on this page measured what happens inside the follicle, so the mechanism claim you often hear cannot be confirmed from here. What the classification records is a device type that works at the skin surface, and what the studies measured were tissue thickness, investigator-rated acne severity and participant satisfaction — not sebum output and not the contents of an individual pore. Anyone describing a suction step as emptying the pore is describing an intention, not a measurement that appears in the cited literature.
Regulatory class aside, what is the difference between a care item and a device procedure?
The difference that is documented here is the level of review each one has been through, not how strong it feels. A device type that is Class I and 510(k)-exempt reached the market without its effectiveness or indications being examined, so every claim about outcome has to come from published studies. A device that went through premarket review at least has a record tied to a stated intended use. That is a statement about paperwork, and it cuts both ways: review is not proof of a result for pores, and exemption is not evidence of risk.
Is hydradermabrasion the same as a peel?
No source on this page compares the two, so nothing here can rank them. What can be said is that the classification cited covers a powered mechanical device type rather than a chemical agent, and that the comparison arm in the 2008 study was the same serum applied by hand rather than any peeling agent — so there is no head-to-head data in the cited literature. If both are offered, the question worth asking is what is physically being done to the skin in each and what the clinic expects the difference to be, because the menu names will not tell you.
Is care performed at a clinic different from care at a beauty salon?
Legally the two sit under different statutes, and this page can describe the provisions without resolving every case. Article 27(1) of the Medical Service Act provides that a non-medical person may not perform medical practice and that a medical person may not go beyond their licence; Table 4 of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Health Control Act separately lists acts a beauty-business operator may not perform, including mole removal, ear piercing, double-eyelid surgery, tattooing and dermabrasion. Which specific care steps a non-licensed staff member may perform inside a medical institution is decided by case law and administrative interpretation, so ask the clinic directly who will be performing your session and in what capacity.
Does it hurt, and what reactions were recorded?
This page holds no adverse-event figures from the three cited studies, so it cannot tell you what proportion of participants experienced what. That absence is itself worth knowing: with samples of 20, 20 and 29 and no control arms, these designs are not sized to characterise uncommon reactions even where they were collected. Ask the clinic what reactions it sees, how long they typically last, and what it advises you to do if something persists — and treat any general reassurance that is not attached to a source as exactly that.
Is there downtime, and can I book this before a flight?
No source cited here publishes a downtime schedule, so only the clinic performing the session can set that timing for you. What the studies do establish is the shape of the protocols rather than the recovery: six sessions in the 2008 arm, 12-week courses in the 2022 and 2024 studies. Before travelling, get the device name and the solution used in writing, ask how long to avoid sun exposure and which products to use meanwhile, and confirm how to reach the clinic from abroad if the skin reacts after you leave.
How many sessions do the studies use?
More than one in every case: six sessions in the 2008 two-arm study, and 12-week courses in both the 2022 acne study and the 2024 growth-factor study. Those numbers describe what each research protocol did, not a dosing regimen validated for general use, and none of the three followed participants past the end of its own study period. A schedule proposed by a clinic is therefore its own plan, and it is reasonable to ask what that plan is based on and at what point it expects to reassess.
Who should not book this, and what should I disclose?
None of the cited studies publishes a contraindication list, so suitability has to be settled in person rather than from this page. The disclosures worth volunteering are isotretinoin use, active or inflamed acne, rosacea, eczema, sunburn or broken skin in the treatment area, a history of cold sores, any peel, laser, microneedling or injectable in recent weeks, and pregnancy or breastfeeding. If the clinic does not ask about these before it starts, that is information about the consultation rather than about the treatment.
It is surface care, so is it risk-free?
No, and the exempt classification is not the reason to think otherwise. Exemption from premarket notification means the device type was not reviewed for effectiveness before sale; it says nothing about what can go wrong in a session, and general controls still apply to exempt devices. The three studies cited here total 69 participants across all of them, which is not a base from which uncommon problems can be ruled out. Surface care being less invasive than a needle or a laser is a statement about depth, not a guarantee about outcome.
The clinic says the machine is FDA-registered. What does that cover?
For this category, far less than the phrase suggests. The powered dermabrasion brush type is Class I and exempt from 510(k), which means there is no premarket review of effectiveness or indications behind it — so a registration or listing entry is an administrative record, not a finding about results. On top of that, a US record says nothing about Korean registration in any event. The question to ask is which machine is in the room and how it is registered in Korea.
Why do prices differ so much between clinics, and how do I compare them?
Align what is inside each quote before you look at the amounts. Confirm which device is used, how many steps the session contains, what solution or serum is applied and how much of it, whether the quote covers one session or a course and over how many weeks, whether any additional product is included and precisely what it is, who performs the session, and what follow-up is covered. Two quotes built on different solutions, different step counts or different session numbers are not the same thing being sold, so comparing the menu names alone compares nothing.
Who is this suitable for, and does it fit into a short trip?
Suitability is decided at an in-person consultation, and the protocols in the cited studies are the main thing to weigh against your dates. Those protocols ran to six sessions or 12 weeks, so a single visit is not what any of the published evidence describes, and no cited source reports what one session produces on its own. Tell the clinic your travel dates, the products and medicines you are using, your skin history and anything you have had done recently, and let it judge before booking whether a course or a single session is what it is actually offering you.
How Abijou works
We started in Gangnam in 2006 and the network now runs 17 branches across Korea. The line we work to is skin transformation woven into everyday life — care you can keep up with, rather than one dramatic change.
- Across the 17 branches in Seoul, Gyeonggi, Incheon and Busan: over 1,000 medical professionals and more than 350 certified medical devices
- Authentic products only, in appropriate amounts — the treatment is fitted to the condition, not to a package
- Prices are quoted from each branch’s published price list as it stands
Contact and location
- Phone
- 1544-0377
Free Consultation
Booking happens at the branch
There is no inquiry form on this page. Once you have picked a branch above, open that branch’s site or the official reservation center and choose a time yourself.
- No deposit and no online prepayment — everything is paid at the visit
- Per-treatment prices are published for each branch on the official reservation center
- English, Japanese and Chinese are supported alongside Korean